If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

BVF Selection Events - Competition Format
Pools
Constitution
All fencers entered in a competition will fence within their respective age category, except as
provided below.

Where fewer than 6 fencers are entered in a category then these fencers will normally combine with
the fencers in the other age category within their associated EVFC Team Championship Veteran or
Grand Veteran age section. Thus, categories 1 and 2 would combine into a group of pools, while
categories 3 and 4 would combine into a group of pools.

Alternatively, if a majority of the fencers in the category affected are in favour, they may fence within
their age category in a short pool.

Therefore there is going to be mixed age-group poule where it will work for the weapon.
.As such I think you should follow your own advice of actually reading the full document and not accusing people are not using the facts, as the above is very clearly documented, when you seem to have little idea of them yourself..

Look at page 5 of the Working Groups report- Selection competitions should be of a format where fencers compete within their own age category. This precludes the use of competitions where some or all age categories are combined at any stage of the competition.The report is contradictory and the scheme has to be unambiguously defined before it can be used for selection. This is an example of why an untried and tested scheme should not be used for selection purposes until it has been properly considered and wherever possible tested. I shall come to other problems later when I answer some of your other points.

Fencers are placed on a ranking list in order of the sum of the ranking points awarded from their
best 2 results from a circuit of 3 competitions.

But surely the selection will be based on someone's best 2 results out of a 3 event circuit as stated above on the BVF document. Why are you saying it would be from a 'single competition run on DE basis'.

Are you trying to scaremonger, or are you not aware of the details of option A? I hope it is not the former!!

If you read Jacquesdor’s post that I was replying to, it was referring to a single age group competition.
However as you have brought the issue up of the 3 competitions in Option A, I will point out the failure in your logic. You again have not looked at the proposed system in depth.
The system of ranking the competitions gives a NIF count proportional to the entry. Of course it is difficult to predict the numbers at a future event, but if we take competitions this year we can get some approximate idea of the variability. If we take the cat 1 men's epee in Manchester there were 19 entries, so the winner would score 19x20= 380 points and the last placed fencer would score 6.8x19= 129 points. However at the Bletchley event there were 3 entries and the winner would then score 20x3=60 points and the third placed fencer 14x3 42 points. The effect of this is to make the second competition virtually irrelevant in the ranking. Of course this is an extreme example, and I sure that you could attempt to argue that it was a special case (Manchester Nationals etc), but other events and other years have shown large disparities in numbers. The effect of this is that fencers will have to fence in all the competitions as they would never be sure beforehand the size of entry, and if a competition has a significantly larger entry than the other 2, we would be effectively selecting from a single competition.

Your compromise is to choose option C, which you say worked for all, but it did not work for lots of fencers (I disliked the age-group format specifically, did it once and do not think I have gone back). Also makes it the luck of a single day as to whether someone qualifies or not.

I assume that you are now accepting that there are 2 competitions in which a fencer can qualify under option C, and is not confined to luck on 1 day?

Look at page 5 of the Working Groups report- Selection competitions should be of a format where fencers compete within their own age category. This precludes the use of competitions where some or all age categories are combined at any stage of the competition.The report is contradictory and the scheme has to be unambiguously defined before it can be used for selection. This is an example of why an untried and tested scheme should not be used for selection purposes until it has been properly considered and wherever possible tested. I shall come to other problems later when I answer some of your other points.

Will keep short - We are voting on option A, B or C, not on the conclusions of the report.

If you read Jacquesdor’s post that I was replying to, it was referring to a single age group competition.
However as you have brought the issue up of the 3 competitions in Option A, I will point out the failure in your logic. You again have not looked at the proposed system in depth.

I have looked at in full detail and I have previously pointed out that the NIF system is flawed.

However if people know the system they are likely to see they need to attend as many events as possible to give the best chance of qualifying. This will boost numbers generally, so could actually improve numbers.

This is something that could be looked at to change after a year or two, if the new system (A) came in.

Even with this imperfection it is still in my mind a better option, than C.

I assume that you are now accepting that there are 2 competitions in which a fencer can qualify under option C, and is not confined to luck on 1 day?

Option C qualification
FIE Veteran World Championships
Individual
Fencers will be selected for each age category and weapon using the following criteria:
• One place is allocated to the highest placed eligible and available fencer at the most recent
BVF Championships
• All other places are allocated on the basis of the highest placed eligible and available fencers
at the most recent BVF Age Group Qualifier, excluding the fencer already selected as above

Yes one spot from BVF Champs, so for Cat 2 fencers someone could come 2nd at that event (behind another cat 2 fencer) , at an event which is way larger and stronger than Age-Groups but would not qualify for the worlds, even if they were as high as 4th at Age-groups (which is much smaller and easier). Not logical at all..

EVFC Veteran European Team Championship
Veterans
For each weapon, a team of 4 fencers is selected using the following criteria:
• Two places are allocated to the highest placed eligible and available category 2 (50-59)
fencers at the most recent BVF Championship
• Two places are allocated to the highest placed eligible and available fencers from either
category 1 (40-49) or category 2 at the most recent BVF Championships

Then up to two discretionary places..

So all non-discretionary spots from one event. So in reality you can only be sure of selection from a single event, as other spots are discretionary..

However if people know the system they are likely to see they need to attend as many events as possible to give the best chance of qualifying. This will boost numbers generally, so could actually improve numbers.
.

Or could have the opposite effect. A fencer could decide that their best chance of qualifying was not attending the last competition and so reduce the NIF count.

Yes one spot from BVF Champs, so for Cat 2 fencers someone could come 2nd at that event (behind another cat 2 fencer) , at an event which is way larger and stronger than Age-Groups but would not qualify for the worlds, even if they were as high as 4th at Age-groups (which is much smaller and easier). Not logical at all.

Worked well for years

Originally Posted by cesh_fencing

EVFC Veteran European Team Championship
Veterans
For each weapon, a team of 4 fencers is selected using the following criteria:
• Two places are allocated to the highest placed eligible and available category 2 (50-59)
fencers at the most recent BVF Championship
• Two places are allocated to the highest placed eligible and available fencers from either
category 1 (40-49) or category 2 at the most recent BVF Championships

Originally Posted by cesh_fencing

Then up to two discretionary places.
So all non-discretionary spots from one event. So in reality you can only be sure of selection from a single event, as other spots are discretionary..

Keep up Chris. If you read my post of the 8th August you will see that the committee have decided to move the age groups back to its orginal date at the begining of the year. This will mean that it can be used for selection every other year for the European teams.

Keep up Chris. If you read my post of the 8th August you will see that the committee have decided to move the age groups back to its orginal date at the begining of the year. This will mean that it can be used for selection every other year for the European teams.

We are voting on the 3 options A, B & C, as per the BVF Statement to membership of 6th August 2017. It has the linked selection criteria for option C here - http://www.veterans-fencing.co.uk/do...18-11-2015.pdf, which is exactly what I have posted on my previous post.

We are not voting on what you have posted here or what you think is the system, as if we did so we would be voting on a number of things that are completely erroneous to what is on the official selection and ranking options documents.

If you vote for option C, you are voting for what is on the official ballot documents. If C wins the membership has voted for the system of just using one event for non-discretionary places for the Euro team championships. That is plainly written in black and white in the official document.

If C were to win and this fundamentally change happens before the next Euro teams, I will be the first to stand up and say that the membership voted that way and selection should be run to the official policy, which is just using the BVF championships for selection.

Or could have the opposite effect. A fencer could decide that their best chance of qualifying was not attending the last competition and so reduce the NIF count.

They could try that, however it could back-fire hugely, as if there is a big turnout on the event they skip they could easily get bumped off selection.

Would you risk that if you were on the brink of selection?

It does mean that if someone has won the first two events, they can take a calculated choice/risk not to do the 3rd. But what is wrong with that.

Also if someone does have a commitment they cannot get out of for just one weekend in the year (which clashes with BVF Champs or Age-groups) under the officially documented selection criteria next year, they would have a very hard time gaining selection for one or other of the events. Under C they can still have a really good opportunity of selection if they do reasonably well at the remaining two events.

We are voting on the 3 options A, B & C, as per the BVF Statement to membership of 6th August 2017. It has the linked selection criteria for option C here - http://www.veterans-fencing.co.uk/do...18-11-2015.pdf, which is exactly what I have posted on my previous post.

Chris
This is getting repetitive. As I have said previously, and it has not been questioned, the committee looked at the schemes at our last meeting and decided that it was pointless going into details on the options until the chosen option were known. The committee have every right to change details such as the dates of the competitions as they have done in the past, without asking for a vote of membership. The advantage of having early Age groups are that it can be used for European selection and will enable selected fencers to make early travel and hotel bookings. For this reason the Domestic Fencing Officer was asked to book a venue early in the year.
If any member has been convinced to change their vote by any of the discussion, you can vote again and only you last vote will count.

Chris
This is getting repetitive. As I have said previously, and it has not been questioned, the committee looked at the schemes at our last meeting and decided that it was pointless going into details on the options until the chosen option were known. The committee have every right to change details such as the dates of the competitions as they have done in the past, without asking for a vote of membership. The advantage of having early Age groups are that it can be used for European selection and will enable selected fencers to make early travel and hotel bookings. For this reason the Domestic Fencing Officer was asked to book a venue early in the year.
If any member has been convinced to change their vote by any of the discussion, you can vote again and only you last vote will count.

I have PM'd GA on facebook to get clarification on this.

The change you are suggesting, if it has been voted and agreed on, is not just a change of date of one event, it is a huge fundamental adjustment to the whole selection scheme, so makes C a completely different option.

As I have said previously, and it has not been questioned, the committee looked at the schemes at our last meeting and decided that it was pointless going into details on the options until the chosen option were known.

Here is a copy and paste from my request regarding clarification on this matter-

'All that was agreed at the committee meeting was acceptance of the WP report with the addition of Option C and the statement to membership, which was written and recorded at the meeting.

Voting system was agreed - email to John and cut off date 31st August.

The options are as in the distributed documents'

The key line - The options are as in the distributed documents - We are voting on the specific document, nothing else.

As such C means for the Worlds 1 spot from Vets Champs and 3 from age-groups. For Euros just the Vets Championships will be used, so just a single chance to get on the team, with luck of the draw being a major concern as it is a mixed age-group event.

So if I screw up my poule for example, I would hope to cause major damage to those wishing to qualify for your category, and it is purely luck who I draw. Not a good system IMHO..

So please stop mis-informing people, and discuss the merits of option C, as per the published document, not your personal view of what you want it to be in the future, which you say has or has not been agreed by the committee.

I am pretty certain that all your suggested changes have not been agreed/voted on in any way by the committee, however positive they may be, else it would have been on the option C paperwork.

Earlier I posted the following-This is getting repetitive. As I have said previously, and it has not been questioned, the committee looked at the schemes at our last meeting and decided that it was pointless going into details on the options until the chosen option were known. The committee have every right to change details such as the dates of the competitions as they have done in the past, without asking for a vote of membership. The advantage of having early Age groups are that it can be used for European selection and will enable selected fencers to make early travel and hotel bookings. For this reason the Domestic Fencing Officer was asked to book a venue early in the year.
If any member has been convinced to change their vote by any of the discussion, you can vote again and only you last vote will count.
I stand by the above and am not mis-informing the membership. it is you who are trying to mis-inform the membership by pretending that the date of option C is fixed.

It says volumes about you that when it is explained that one of you objections to option C can be easily overcome by running the Age groups earlier, you state that you would do everything you could to stop the change.

It says volumes about you that when it is explained that one of you objections to option C can be easily overcome by running the Age groups earlier, you state that you would do everything you could to stop the change.

Including the Age-groups in the Euro Teams selection scheme for option C is not one of the options we are voting on. Simple as that, so has no relevance to the vote, so saying that will happen and that the C selection document for Euro Teams will completely change is clearing mis-informing the membership as it 1) is not on the document & 2) has not been agreed by the committee. It is just an idea..

If it is one of the options, please copy and paste that section, so I can see what you are reading.

I will be in full support of the memberships vote when it is collated, but will be against immediately fundamentally changing the complete basis of what people voted on (especially selection schemes), as why then bother with the vote in the first place.